Background: UK care home residents are often poorly served by existing healthcare arrangements. Published descriptions of residents’ health status have been limited by lack of detail and use of data derived from surveys drawn from social, rather than health, care records. Aim: to describe in detail the health status and healthcare resource use of UK care home residents Design and setting: a 180-day longitudinal cohort study of 227 residents across 11 UK care homes, 5 nursing and 6 residential, selected to be representative for nursing/residential status and dementia registration. Method: Barthel index (BI), Mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Neuropsychiatric index (NPI), Mini-nutritional index (MNA), EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D), 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), diagnoses and medications were recorded at baseline and BI, NPI, GHQ-12 and EQ-5D at follow-up after 180 days. National Health Service (NHS) resource use data were collected from databases of local healthcare providers. Results: out of a total of 323, 227 residents were recruited. The median BI was 9 (IQR: 2.5–15.5), MMSE 13 (4–22) and number of medications 8 (5.5–10.5). The mean number of diagnoses per resident was 6.2 (SD: 4). Thirty per cent were malnourished, 66% had evidence of behavioural disturbance. Residents had contact with the NHS on average once per month. Conclusion: residents from both residential and nursing settings are dependent, cognitively impaired, have mild frequent behavioural symptoms, multimorbidity, polypharmacy and frequently use NHS resources. Effective care for such a cohort requires broad expertise from multiple disciplines delivered in a co-ordinated and managed way.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected care home residents internationally, with 19–72% of COVID-19 deaths occurring in care homes. COVID-19 presents atypically in care home residents and up to 56% of residents may test positive whilst pre-symptomatic. In this article, we provide a commentary on challenges and dilemmas identified in the response to COVID-19 for care homes and their residents. We highlight the low sensitivity of polymerase chain reaction testing and the difficulties this poses for blanket screening and isolation of residents. We discuss quarantine of residents and the potential harms associated with this. Personal protective equipment supply for care homes during the pandemic has been suboptimal and we suggest that better integration of procurement and supply is required. Advance care planning has been challenged by the pandemic and there is a need to for healthcare staff to provide support to care homes with this. Finally, we discuss measures to implement augmented care in care homes, including treatment with oxygen and subcutaneous fluids, and the frameworks which will be required if these are to be sustainable. All of these challenges must be met by healthcare, social care and government agencies if care home residents and staff are to be physically and psychologically supported during this time of crisis for care homes.

Purpose: In response to the growing recognition of geriatric rehabilitation and to support healthcare providers which need strategies to support older people with frailty who have experienced functional decline, we developed a consensus statement about core principles and future priorities for geriatric rehabilitation. Methods: We used a three-stage approach to establish consensus—preparation, consensus and review. Results: The consensus statement is grouped under 11 headings from (1) “Definition of GR” to (11) “Effective strategies to develop GR in Europe”, which define geriatric rehabilitation in a way that is compatible with existing service models across Europe. Additionally future goals around research and education are highlighted. Conclusion: The definitions of the consensus statement can provide a starting point for those wishing to further develop geriatric rehabilitation in their jurisdiction and help to develop strategic alliances with other specialties, serving as a basis for a pan-European approach to geriatric rehabilitation.

Introduction: the rise in the number of older, frail adults necessitates that future doctors are adequately trained in the skills of geriatric medicine. Few countries have dedicated curricula in geriatric medicine at the undergraduate level. The aim of this project was to develop a consensus among geriatricians on a curriculum with the minimal requirements that a medical student should achieve by the end of medical school. Methods: a modified Delphi process was used. First, educational experts and geriatricians proposed a set of learning objectives based on a literature review. Second, three Delphi rounds involving a panel with 49 experts representing 29 countries affiliated to the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) was used to gain consensus for a final curriculum. Results: the number of disagreements following Delphi Rounds 1 and 2 were 81 and 53, respectively. Complete agreement was reached following the third round. The final curriculum consisted of detailed objectives grouped under 10 overarching learning outcomes. Discussion: a consensus on the minimum requirements of geriatric learning objectives for medical students has been agreed by European geriatricians. Major efforts will be needed to implement these requirements, given the large variation in the quality of geriatric teaching in medical schools. This curriculum is a first step to help improve teaching of geriatrics in medical schools, and will also serve as a basis for advancing postgraduate training in geriatrics across Europe.